FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AMNCH (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - FORSA (REPRESENTED BY THOMAS COWMAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pension Issue
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6thDecember 2018, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14thFebruary 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The union claims on behalf of their member for recognition of her employment with the Employer for the entirety of her service from 19 November 1990 to 24 April 2018.
2. The union states the decision of the Employer not to recognise their members’ period of employment from 19 November 1990 to 1 June 1998 has had a substantial financial implication on their member.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer states the Worker was employed by a group of private medical consultants for the period of service in question and therefore not reckonable for pension purposes.
2. The Employer states an offer was made to the to remain in her employment until the age of 65 years and offered not seek the PRSI contributions of €4,400 from the Worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court relates to the Claimant’s employment in the period from 19thNovember 1990 to 1stJune 1998. The Trade Union claims that this period of service should be included for pension purposes. The Claimant maintains that during that period she was employed by the Adelaide and Meath Hospital. The Hospital submits that she was employed by private medical consultants during that period and that she became an employee of the hospital on its transfer to Tallaght on 1stJune 1998.
It is common case that throughout the period the Claimant was paid by the hospital, that her payslips were hospital payslips, that she was issued P60’s throughout the period identifying the hospital as her employer and that that the employer’s registered number used on those P60’s was that of the hospital. It is also common case that she wore the uniform of the hospital throughout the period.
The hospital submits that it was providing a payroll service only for private medical consultants throughout the period and not acting as employer of the Claimant.
The Claimant applied for a job with the hospital in 1990 and the hospital submitted that, while she did not succeed in securing the job she applied for, she was offered and accepted another job wherein she was employed by the private consultants. The Claimant disputes that she was ever offered or accepted a job with any entity other than the hospital as her employer.
The hospital confirmed that no contract of employment had been provided to the claimant during the disputed period and was unable to say whether the private consultants were ever registered as an employer with any relevant authority.
In all of the circumstances, and taking account in particular of the assertion by the Revenue Commissioners in a letter to the Claimant dated 17thJanuary 2019 that the Commissioners’ records showed her as being employed by the hospital throughout the material period, the Court finds that the Claimant was employed by the hospital from November 1990 to 1stJune 1998. This period should therefore be included for calculation of her pension entitlement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
TH______________________
18 February 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.